Is population growth a good thing?

donaldtramp

Population growth is a bad thing. There is only so much that the Earth can sustain.
David Attenborourgh is patron of The Optimum Population Trust. And he is quite a smart cookie.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece

Sir David Attenborough said yesterday that the growth in global population was frightening, as he became a patron of an organisation that campaigns to limit the number of people in the world.
The television presenter and naturalist said that the increase in population was having devastating effects on ecology, pollution and food production.
“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.
“It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production.
Related Links

• Attenborough on Charles Darwin

• Enough, population doom merchants

• Think tank: Ireland will die without foreigners

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people,” Sir David, who has two children, said.

It stills amazes me that the Catholic Church thinks condoms are "against gods will". This leads to huge poor families struggling to get by all round the world.
They are doing the world a huge disservice with this outdated view.


The world population has been sustained(and allowed to balloon) by the extraction of 100s of millions of years worth of stored oil, gas and coal. This is used to create fertilisers which allow us to actually feed the population of the Earth. We in the UK have extracted and used a lot more than half of our oil and gas in 25/30 years.
As we approach Peak Oil and go down the other side of the Peak Oil graph things are going to change enormously and it aint gonna be pretty. Some commentators think we have already had peak oil production. Whatever people say, it isn't far away. It is Geological FACT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
When it kicks in with ever decreasing amounts of oil being produced, there will be famine as the conflict between energy for food and energy to run massive SUVs and 4x4s.
Our current lifestyle is massively unsustainable and it the situation will be reversed, it is only a question of time.

mbga9pgf

In a word, no. All I think of walking down Oxford street - The human race are like locusts; spreading rapidly, consuming all in their path.

We need a bloody strong dose of Swine flu or airbourne aids to sort it out IMHO.

I firmly believe that global warming is a myth; governments dont have the balls to admit at current population growth rates, we simply will run out of energy. We all want to believe it will all be ok, everything will be fine. I see it time and time again in the places I visit with work, its one of the most basic human coping instincts. Unfortunately, if we dont get a grip of wasting state resource and burgeoning population, we are in big trouble. In future, countries qualitiy of life will be measured by population by area, not financial stats such as GDP, income per capita and GDP growth.

wigglebeena

ILW wrote: »

I think that the main problem is, that this government seem to be determeined to encourage the wrong people to have loads of kids. The underclass see it as a way of bettering themselves into more benefits, bigger houses etc. In general those children from generations of non working households will form more non working households who will always be a burden on the country.
The people that strive to improve themselves through hard work tend to limit the amount of children they have, to what they can afford.
Dont know what the answer is, but restricting benefits to the first two offspring and no social housing above 2 beds, may be a start.

Or actual workers leaving the country and leaving the govt and the scroungers (I don't mean genuine claimants) to it. As soon as my APs leave this mortal coil I'm outta the UK, working on my language skills in the meantime. Any recommendations for destinations?

mbga9pgf

Germany and France are short term destinations I am looking into, but would never go there to start my own business. Canada and New Zealand are both awesome. Oz is very very nice, if a bit of a rough cut diamond.

I am currently expanding my skillset at work with a view to emmigrating; If QE is still going on by march next year my entire savings are getting shifted into a USD/CAD/EURO mix. Good article by Liam Hannagan in the Torygraph this morning which, incidentally, I disagree with; the long term end-state is going to be state default or enormous public sector cutbacks similar to that Canada experienced in the past 10 years, both highlyt deflationary. However, we are past event horizon, we have a major financial event looming at some stage in the mid term, be that state default or 25% public sector spending cuts, despite the direction we go in, its going to be bad for stirling.

Milarky

ILW wrote: »

I think that the main problem is, that this government seem to be determeined to encourage the wrong people to have loads of kids. The underclass see it as a way of bettering themselves into more benefits, bigger houses etc. In general those children from generations of non working households will form more non working households who will always be a burden on the country.
The people that strive to improve themselves through hard work tend to limit the amount of children they have, to what they can afford.
Dont know what the answer is, but restricting benefits to the first two offspring and no social housing above 2 beds, may be a start.

Agreed. It's so difficult a topic that even the Green Party seems to be soft peddling. Kudos to China for its one-child policy. The only way in the West that will 'sell' it is if you give people money NOT to have children. So the government's policy of ending 'child poverty' would have to go.

It's not just population growh from births. There is also net migration to consider. I am opposed to restrictions on people moving around the planet for work and a better life so I suppose the only 'policy' I can see which might help is to have a 'population strategy' in there with the usual suspects. A 'strategy' should inform other policies - rather like th carbon impact thingy - and, to be fair, I think that's all the Green Party (as the most radical on the environment) would do vis-a-vis population.

Shakethedisease

Perhaps the problem is that we're all living longer, not that 'all the wrong type's'.. whatever the hell THAT means..are having children.

Population growth in the UK and I'm no expert, proabably has as much to do with average life expentancies as it does with birth-rates.

Population
The 'oldest old' are the fastest growing sub-group of the population

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2125

I think the focus on this thread has been too much on births and the 'types of people' who should be 'allowed' to have children. The reality is that increasing life expectancy plays a large part too in any future population projection.

drc

Surely population growth to fund the pensions of older people is a pyramid scheme though? If you constantly need more people at the bottom to fund the retirement of those at the top then every generation you need more people at the bottom. This is unsustainable.

zygurat789

It doesn't matter.
We keep hearing how species are being wiped out because their habitat is being destroyed, they use their habitat for food, so really their food source evaporates.
Global warming is obviously happening and could well wipe out all the plants which support our food chain.
Yes climate change happens all the time. If this is natural then we can't stop it and god help us. If it's man made then we can, but after the weekend, obviously don't want to.

zygurat789

I saw a programme yesterday on greenhouse gases.
Pre industrial revolution CO2 ppm 288
Now CO2 ppm 386
They have also analysed ice cores over the last 750,000 years including 8 climate warmings. The highest CO2 reading from any of these was 296 ppm.
Now I'm scared

Stompa

drc wrote: »

Surely population growth to fund the pensions of older people is a pyramid scheme though? If you constantly need more people at the bottom to fund the retirement of those at the top then every generation you need more people at the bottom. This is unsustainable.

Exactly!!!!